{
  "id": 1562245,
  "name": "CARLISLE v. WALKER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carlisle v. Walker",
  "decision_date": "1943-04-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 4757",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "84",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 N.M. 83"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "136 P.2d 479"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 N.M. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841185
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.M. 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1557950
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "942"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/35/0393-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.M. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1557962
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "53"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/35/0052-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 2931,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.693,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3011864039129844e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9167364583803921
    },
    "sha256": "28bf0f16bfde980438087e23a026380f9811eb855199d72c9e69ba7e75dcefd5",
    "simhash": "1:f9ffe090afaaab18",
    "word_count": 509
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:28:58.781619+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SADLER, MABRY and BRICE, JJ., concur.",
      "ZINN, C. J., did not participate."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CARLISLE v. WALKER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BICKLEY, Justice.\nAppellant sued defendant for damages alleged to have been caused to his person and his automobile on March 18, 1941, due to the negligent operation by defendant of a truck under his control. Defendant denied that he was negligent and alleged that plaintiff\u2019s injuries, if any, were due to and caused solely by his own negligence. The case was tried by the court without a jury.\nThe court rendered judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendant which incorporated a general finding that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the allegations of his complaint to the effect that the damages suffered by him were caused by the negligence of the defendant\u2019s agents, and further that the plaintiff had been guilty of negligence in failing to signal his intention to turn and stop his car while proceeding along a public highway, which negligence on his behalf was the sole and proximate cause of the collision and the consequent damages. It was admitted in plaintiff\u2019s reply to defendant\u2019s answer that he gave no signal when turning off the road to the right.\nNo other findings of fact or conclusions of law were made in the case.\nNeither party requested or tendered specific findings and conclusions.\nAppellant assigned errors as follows:\n\u201c1. The court erred in failing to file separate findings of fact and conclusion of law.\n\u201c2. The evidence and pleadings do not support the judgment of the court.\u201d\nAs to the first assignment of error, it is sufficient to call attention to sub-paragraph (6) of the fourth paragraph of Rule 52 of Rules of Civil Procedure as follows: \u201cA party will waive specific findings of fact and conclusions of law if he fails to make a general request therefor in writing, or if he fails to tender specific findings and conclusions.\u201d\nThe record in the case at bar does not invoke a review of the evidence. Harris & Maldonado v. Sperry, 35 N.M. 52, 53, 290 P. 1022.\nThe decision in the foregoing case was cited in Davis et al. v. Tarbutton, 35 N.M. 393, 298 P. 941, 942, to the proposition \u201cA conclusion supporting a judgment will not be reviewed on the facts in the absence of specific findings,\u201d and in Standard Oil Co. v. Brown, 40 N.M. 18, 52 P.2d 1089, we said: \u201cWe will not review the evidence to see whether it supports the general findings in the judgment where there has been no requested findings of fact.\u201d Citing Harris & Maldonado v. Sperry, supra.\nAs to assignment No. 2, appellant argues that as there is no evidence to support the judgment, the court committed fundamental error which may be availed of without exception. This contention is without merit.\nFinding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSADLER, MABRY and BRICE, JJ., concur.\nZINN, C. J., did not participate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BICKLEY, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lee R. York, of Hobbs, for appellant.",
      "John R. Brand, of Hobbs, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "136 P.2d 479\nCARLISLE v. WALKER et al.\nNo. 4757.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nApril 17, 1943.\nLee R. York, of Hobbs, for appellant.\nJohn R. Brand, of Hobbs, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 107,
  "last_page_order": 108
}